So how long will Ben last this time?

[ricketyclik]

Us and them.

[Ben Kenobi]

In some areas with significant moorish populations, they did do a lot of farming. In other provinces they were such a tiny minority it made no difference. So yes, food production was trashed in some provinces when they were expelled.

Except that's not what we see under the Catholic monarchs. Economic production as a whole (as well as the population), increased. I can totally see the theory you're advancing, but it doesn't bear any connection to the reality of a Spain that rather quickly became THE European superpower after the union of Castile and Aragon.

[Aeson]

Your theory is that Spain under the Catholic Monarchs was similar in economic production to Zimbabwe under Mugabe?

My theory is that you're a racist who thinks kicking farmers off their land is good as long as the farmers aren't white.

Was there a food production problem? No.

In areas it decimated the local economy.

[Ben Kenobi]

My theory is that you're a racist, and think kicking farmers off their land is good as long as the farmers aren't white.

There are plenty of African countries that have done well after taking control of their own future. Zimbabwe has not.

Why? Well, geez. Perhaps I can attribute it to Robert Mugabe and his incompetent rule. But, I guess that's racist to criticize Mugabe for turning Zimbabwe into a ****hole.

[ricketyclik]

[aside] Why the fvck does Ben insist on quoting without the link to the original post every time? [/aside]

[Ben Kenobi]

[aside] Why the fvck does Ben insist on quoting without the link to the original post every time? [/aside]

Eh, force of habit. Easier to type "[quote]/[quote]" around the part I am quoting.

[Elok]

Since you punks have already responded to BK, I suppose there's no further harm done in pointing out what I've read from multiple books on Spanish history: that, after the expulsion of the moriscos (not necessarily because of it), Spain was agriculturally and economically retarded for centuries. Enormous swathes of land owned by monasteries or absentee noble landlords would just lie fallow, even in times of famine. There was also a prevailing culture that glorified indolence or even banditry--a legacy of the Reconquista--and what agriculture did exist tended to focus on pastures and raising sheep for wool at the expense of more efficient cereal crops. IIRC the wool merchants even had special privileges granted by the Crown to protect them. And the endless flow of young people to the New World caused a labor shortage, even as loads of silver pouring back led to inflation but was mostly wasted on extravagance.

The history of those centuries makes for depressing reading: "In this decade, things sucked in Spain. Geez, did things suck. We moderns really cannot comprehend the sheer degree of suckage going on. And in the next decade, they sucked worse. This guy tried to improve things, but they called him a Jew and drove him out of the country. In the following decade, new factors increased the amount of suck going on by roughly a third, as exports declined and the King created a new fashion of feeding silver directly to pigs so the feces strewing the streets would be more attractive . . ."

[Proteus_MST]

It wasn't the Christians who declared war on them.



The Muslims declared war on Israel. They lost. Too bad, so sad. Israel after the partition of the British Mandate did allocate half the land to the Palestinians. They, (and Egypt and Syria) decided they wanted all the land not just half. They declared war on Israel and lost.

Right of defensive conquest is not a bad thing, and this is the same here. It wasn't that the Christians declared war on Islam, rather Islam had declared war on them.



Given that the Jewish kingdom predated the Arab conquest of 600 AD, I cannot see how one can argue that they had more of a right to the land than the Jews. Also, Israel has way more people now than they had during the Ottoman period.

And this is, obviously, because you equate the ordinary people living within a territory with the state they are living in ...
and make no distinction between an ordinary farmer who just lives within the territory because he was born and raised there and someone who actively is involved in the matters of the state he lives in, for example as a warrior or someone of the ruling political party.

Which, in my eyes, is a black-white view of the world, that modern 21st century humans should try to get rid of

[ricketyclik]

Eh, force of habit. Easier to type "quote]/[quote" around the part I am quoting.

There's a button you know.

[Kidlicious]

One wrong doesn´t correct another wrong ... especially a christian should be aware of that

Driving muslim farmers out of formerly conquered land they had in possession for centuries is just as wrong as driving the christian families out of that land during the initial conquest.

There actually is an equivalent in nowadays world ... and that is the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis upon founding of the Israeli state.
The many palestinians that were driven out by the Israelis (or fled and were prevented to return) lived on their soil for countless centuries and surely had more right to this soil (or at least a proper compensation) than the israelis that the soil was subsequently given to, after annexing it

No. It wasn't wrong. The Muslims were trying to destroy Christianity and force all Christians to submit to Allah and Muslim rulers. Why should you expect them to allow Muslims to live in their lands when this is going on?

[Kidlicious]

My theory is that you're a racist who thinks kicking farmers off their land is good as long as the farmers aren't white.

Don't confuse race with Muslim. The Muslims were horribly racist. Do you know what they did to Africa, what they are still doing to Africa?

[Kidlicious]

And this is, obviously, because you equate the ordinary people living within a territory with the state they are living in ...
and make no distinction between an ordinary farmer who just lives within the territory because he was born and raised there and someone who actively is involved in the matters of the state he lives in, for example as a warrior or someone of the ruling political party.

Which, in my eyes, is a black-white view of the world, that modern 21st century humans should try to get rid of

Sure, if you want to be conquered again by Muslims. That's exactly what's going to happen if people have an attitude like yours.

[Proteus_MST]

Sure, if you want to be conquered again by Muslims. That's exactly what's going to happen if people have an attitude like yours.

Less than 100 years ago an austrian said similar things about the jews ... and led germany into some of the darkest years in its history

[Kidlicious]

Less than 100 years ago an austrian said similar things about the jews ... and led germany into some of the darkest years in its history

Godwin. This is all the more reason to not want to be conquered by Islamists, not less.

[kentonio]

And we're just supposed to ignore the Christians who had their land taken away?

This is hilarious coming from a ****** who has lived in two countries, both of which were stolen from their native populations considerably less than 700 years ago. Are we just supposed to ignore the native Americans who had their land taken away?